From Subsistence Agriculture to Commercial Enterprise: Community Management of Green Technologies for Resilient Food Production
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Paper Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society 3 (2) Autumn 2015 From Subsistence Agriculture to Commercial Enterprise: Community management of green technologies for resilient food production C.J.K. LATHAM1, L. PALENTINI*1, M. KATEMAUNZANGA1, P. ASHTON1 1 Cesvi - Participatory Foundation and NGO, Bergamo, Italy * Corresponding author’s contact details: Email: [email protected] | Tel: +263 772 283179 Data of the article First received: 20 July 2015 | Last revision received: 28 October 2015 Accepted: 29 October 2015 | Published online: 16 December 2015 URN: nbn:de:hebis:34-2015092949080 Key words Abstract Private Public Community The aim of this paper is to emphasize the capacity and resilience of rural communities in regard Partnership; irrigation; to sustainable food security by adopting innovative approaches to irrigation. The shift from governance; market-based subsistence to commercial agriculture is promoted as a means to sustainable development. agriculture; food security An analysis of the efficacy of irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe suggests that, in terms of provid- ing sustainable agricultural production, they have neither been cost-effective nor have they provided long-term food security to their beneficiaries. This is certainly true of Shashe Scheme and most others in Beitbridge District. The Shashe Irrigation Scheme project represents a bold attempt at developing a fresh approach to the management of communal land irrigation schemes through a Private Public Community Partnership. The model illustrated represents a paradigm shift from subsistence agriculture to a system based on new technologies, market linkages and community ownership that build resilience and lead to sustainable food security and economic prosperity. Introduction Beitbridge district is situated in the south west popo rivers. Settlements are mainly concentrated lowlands of Zimbabwe. It is part of agro-ecological near the rivers and scattered villages inland where zone five (Vincent & Thomas, 1960) with altitudes some water is available from natural pools and averaging about 500 meters above sea level. It is springs. In the nineteen 1960s more people were characterised as a semi desert region. Maramani moved into Maramani by the colonial government Communal Area is situated in the south west of the in order to avail more land for commercial farming. district and borders on the Shashe-Limpopo Rivers, the international boundary with South Africa and Boreholes were drilled throughout the hinterland Botswana. and irrigation schemes were constructed along the Shashe River to cater for the additional set- Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas are reserved for In- tlers. Shashe irrigation scheme (184 hectares) was digenous Zimbabweans where they live under tra- constructed as part of a governmental plan for the ditional systems of (land) tenure and governance ar- overall development of the area. Shashe as the big- rangements (Holleman, 1952; Rukuni, 1994). There gest scheme catered for at least half the villages in is very little water inland from the Shashe and Lim- the southern section of Maramani while Jalukanga Citation (APA): Latham, C.J.K., Palentini, L., Katemaunzanga, M., Ashton, P. (2015). From Subsistence Agriculture to Commercial Enterprise: Community manage- ment of green technologies for resilient food production, Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 3(2), 8-17 8 Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 3 (2) and Bili schemes serviced the northern half. In 2003, Nottingham Estate, a large-scale commer- cial citrus farm some forty kilometres from Shashe, Shashe, Jalukanga and Bili, differ from most other promoted a consultation with local plot holders re- colonial schemes in that the members do not live sulted in a proposal submitted by CASS (Centre for on the scheme in villages dedicated to this purpose, Applied Social Science – University of Zimbabwe) to but are scattered amongst their home villages along the FAO. The farmers wished for greater jurisdiction the river and hinterland, in not a few cases as far as and ownership of the scheme (including irrigation 16 kilometres away. The influence of this settlement infrastructure). They wished to foster the idea of a pattern upon the emergence and development of partnership with commercial institutions or NGOs the model described below should not be underes- with a view to raising capital to revamp the scheme. timated in terms of distribution of obligations and They also proposed a high value marketable crop the rewards of participating in the scheme. be introduced and favoured the introduction of or- anges. Shashe Scheme was built and run as a top down gov- ernment controlled “technocratic” scheme (Bolding, The notion was expressed that if a new successful 2004). The scheme was designed to provide liveli- model could be developed, it could lead to Shashe hood opportunities to approximately ten villages in being used as a template and training aid for other Maramani. From then until the early nineteen 1980s schemes in the area. A household survey and a start the scheme was productive, growing crops mainly on capacity building were undertaken until the eco- for local consumption. Support from central and lo- nomic meltdown in 2008 meant that FAO funding cal government dwindled from the nineteen 1970s ceased. By this time, the community had devel- and almost completely ceased by the early 1980s oped a vision of how the scheme might develop. as collateral damage of the independence war and In 2010 CESVI – Italian NGO active in the Southern the resulting lack of funds by the new government. Lowveld since 1998 having done extensive research The scheme slowly deteriorated and for all practi- in the Maramani area associated with the introduc- cal purposes it became defunct by the end of the tion of the Mapungubwe TFCA (Trans-Frontier Con- nineteen 1980s. Devastating floods and cyclonic servation Area) – with EU financial support accept- ed the challenge of a project for the resuscitation of Shashe scheme. A new model was proposed, which promoted a paradigm shift from the tradi- tional subsistence agriculture to turn the communi- ty into a commercial enterprise by linking together: traditional knowledge of the area and its resources; local expertise from existing commercial ventures; market access through the local processing plant; commitment for the implementation of a long term strategy through traditional and local leaderships; and donor funds through the technical support of an NGO. Work commenced on the scheme in 2011. Literature review Figure 1: Shashe irrigation scheme superimposed to satel- lite map of the area. Research indicates that communal area systems of managing irrigation have rested heavily on two events finally damaged remaining infrastructure persistent models: the “Technocratic” model and so that by the mid-nineties no more than between the “Local” model. (Bolding (2004) refers to the two ten and twenty hectares were being irrigated. A few models as “factory” and “African” – labels that do attempts were made by well meaning but under re- not accurately describe their components). Neither sourced non-profit partners and the Department of model has proved to be sustainable. Analysis re- Irrigation to revive the scheme but without success. veals essential institutional and economic flaws in ISSN-Internet 2197-411x OLCL 862804632 UniKassel & VDW, Germany- December 2015 9 Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 3 (2) both. Thus, the model being introduced at Shashe Case study seeks to create a sustainable system of manage- ment through a major paradigm shift involving The present model introduced at Shashe (Figure three interlinked principal ingredients: (i) market vi- 2) is based on research carried out over a number ability, (ii) strategic partnerships and (iii) maximum of years of regional and national level (i.e. Water devolved jurisdiction to local level. Research Southern Africa (WARFSA) program) and confirmed by local participative research with and Analysis has shown that these schemes generally by the Shashe Community. The work undertaken collapse for the following reasons: by Mead (Mead, 2001), Cunliffe (Cunliffe, 2004) and Latham (Latham, 1999, 2005) as advisers/ consult- • The “technocratic” model fails because techno- ants to CESVI, who has been active in the southern crats do not have the capacity to manage down Lowveld of Zimbabwe since 1998, contributed to its to field level. The transaction costs if properly evolution. Most important of all it incorporates the charged to the scheme (and thus the farmers) views and scenarios formed in consultation with are not cost effective. If the government is un- the community, local leadership and other stake- willing or unable to subsidize the scheme, all holders. technical and managerial inputs cease or are curtailed. Without the financial support sup- plied by Government or NGOs, the scheme’s infrastructure deteriorates and collapses. Local level management lacks capacity to manage the financial, institutional, marketing capacity requirements for sustainability (Manzungu & Machiridza, 2005). • The “local” model fails because technical knowl- edge is lacking, crops are grown largely for self-provisioning and do not realize sufficient income to provide adequate funds for mainte- nance and management costs. Local institu- tions fail to manage adequately as they lack ca- pacity. Insufficient income is generated to levy Figure 2: Project area the